I'm pretty sure I recall "release candidate" being used in other divisions so it might be Windows division specific terminology. Microsoft is a big place.
Xbox has been languishing badly and Microsoft games in general have not been doing very well over the past decade despite gaming becoming completely mainstream so one might suspect that he is being retired rather than retiring. Yes, he was better than Mattrick but that was a very, very low bar to clear.
I will give Spencer a bit of credit though for bringing back Microsoft Flight Simulator.
I want to agree but I don't see the greener grass at all. Please bear in mind that this is totally anecdotal.
I own all three major consoles. My PS5 has been switched on about six times since I purchased it at the time the PSVR2 was released. Is it because I'm not into the funky and weird JRPG titles or am I just sold to the Xbox ecosystem? I play Xbox almost every single day. My PS5 is just using up space and for two titles which didn't fully grip me (Horizon and The Last of Us).
All Xbox games are available on PS5. You can play Forza Horizon just fine on PS5 but Ghost of Yotei is never coming to Xbox. Microsoft had to do this because Xbox sales are dismal (below Xbox One) and they're being outsold 3:1.
When did the last new Gears and Halo games come out again? 5+ years ago? That's what Xbox has, historic exclusives. Gears 1 Reloaded came to PS5, Halo: Campaign Evolved is coming to PS5. All the big recent Xbox games have either come to PS5 or are coming. Indiana Jones, Avowed, Flight Simulator 2024, Forza Horizon 5, etc. Then you have to remember most everything else but Halo 5 and a few Gears games were already on PC too.
The only reason to keep an Xbox these days is for your existing library.
Funky and weird JRPG titles and games with cartoony graphics and ridiculous titles are (a) a small percentage of the PlayStation library given that >99% of games are cross-platform, (b) not nearly global enough in their appeal or sales figures to make any disinterested persons the outliers, and (c) in my experience, many of them also release on Xbox, Switch, and/or PC.
I own no consoles and am neutral on JRPGs and cartoony graphics, so I have no skin in this game. But you seem oddly focused on writing off a functionally identical piece of hardware based on the existence of one particular genre that doesn't interest you.
Sounds like the GP still has the mentality of the PS2/late PS1 era, where JRPG with cartoony graphics were indeed the big trend and pushing force of gaming.
But that very abruptly ended with the PS3, between development costs ballooning and shutting down many longstanding studios, trends shifting to chase open world or the blossoming online FPS genre, a shift of Japanese developers towards "global appeal", and the extremely slow start of the PS3 as a viable console to sell for.
Any JRPG studios surviving past that purge are the stragglers, not the trendsetters. And every company has their battle scars from that time. Final fantasy development exploded in budget, the "Tales of" series coasted along (fans would call it the "call of duty of JRPGs"), Atlus had to be bought out by Sega to survive (and fortunately, thrive), Monolith broke off of Bandai Namco and went to Nintendo, and so many more stories. Falcom seems to be the only one who simply cruised on by, which speaks to how lean and consistent their development cycle was.
I haven’t looked at the specifics but it’s seemed to me that for years anything that came out on Xbox also came out on PC on the same date, and the PC has titles that aren’t on either Xbox or PS5. There are a lot of games that come out on PS5 and then either never come to PC or there’s a year+ delay. Thats why I have a PC and a PS5 and haven’t considered buying an Xbox for a long time.
Individual developers or even developer management doesn't get much of a say in product direction at large corporations. The product management folks are who decide what features go in and when.
If I had to guess, the mandate to cram AI in everywhere came down from Nadella and the executive level with each level of management having KPIs for AI in their product all the way down. Much like the "everything has to be .NET even though nobody has any idea what .NET means" when it was first introduced and every MS product suddenly sprouted .NET at the end of their names. When executive management gives stupid non-negotiable orders, they get stupid results.
I’m all for AI integrated into applications where it makes sense; “remove background” buttons in image editors, for example, where the application uses AI to perform a useful function, without the user needing to care what happened under the hood.
Microsoft’s product managers however have no imagination, and so they insist on just mindlessly shoving obnoxious Copilot buttons everywhere.
Now imagine that you are someone who doesn't even think AI is useful, and imagine just how much more infuriating it is to have it crammed in. Drives me up a wall.
If you Google around, you'll find that about 1/3 of server operating systems broken down by revenue (not install count) is Windows Server. That's billions of dollars.
The difference is that Microsoft didn't receive any direct revenue off of IE and Google had a lot of levers to use (they weren't under antitrust scrutiny at the time) to continue to eat away at IE's market share. It was smart for MS to give up on maintaining their own browser and downright brilliant for them to use their competitor's own browser against them.
On the other hand, Windows Home and Windows Pro are only part of the bigger picture. Microsoft gets billions in revenue from Windows Enterprise seats and billions more from Windows Server, probably more enterprise revenue than Red Hat and Canonical combined does for their Linux offerings. They have zero reason to give up on Windows while the money keeps rolling in.
At large companies, UI/UX is done by UI/UX designers and features are chosen and prioritized by product management and customer research teams. Developers don't get much input.
As Steve Jobs said long ago "The only problem with Microsoft is they just have no taste." but you can apply the same to Google and anyone else trying to compete with them. Having infinite AI developers doesn't help those who have UI designers and product managers that have no taste.
Reuters reports (https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/microsoft-e...) "CEO Nadella revealed for the first time that Microsoft now has 15 million annual users for M365 Copilot, the $30 per month AI assistant that is Microsoft's main offering for business users." so in theory that's $5.4 billion in revenue.
Having STEs as full time employees benefited MS greatly. They knew products from the end user and UI/UX perspective inside and out in ways even the SDETs didn't.
UI/UX quality in MS products dipped noticeably after the STE role was eliminated.
Imho, there are two key values that I've seen QA bring to software companies.
1. Deep user/product expertise. QA (and support) almost always knows more about how users (including expert users) actually use the product than dev.
2. Isolation of quality from dev leadership politics. It should be unsurprising that asking an org to measure and report the quality of its own work is fraught with peril. Even assuming good intentions, having the same person who has been developing and staring at a feature for months test it risks incomplete testing: devs have no way to forget all the insider things they know about a feature.
The best places I've worked were places where QA reported up an entirely different leadership chain than engineering, and where they got their own VP with equal power as the engineering VP, and their own seat at the same decision-making table.
When QA is subordinate to engineering, they become a mere rubber stamp.
A good question to ask when joining a software company is "Does QA have the power to block releases over the objection of engineering?" I have found companies who can answer YES to this put out much better products.
There was a real problem of QA becoming bloated and filled with less than qualified people. The really good engineered would transfers out to SDE orgs and so the senior ranks of QA tended to be either true believers are people who weren't good enough to move to SDE orgs.
Especially with QA outside of Microsoft at the time paying so much less, it was a wise long term career move to move to SDE as soon as possible.
The really good SDETs transitioned to SDE also because of social pressure. There were a large number of SDEs that would openly say unprofessional things like "well, if s/he were actually any good they'd be an SDE" to colleagues.
reply